The Ho norab le Judith M. Barz ilay , Judge, U nited States Court of Internation al Trade, sittingby * designation. NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 10a0685n. 06 N o. 07- 6466 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee,
v. J O E D A V ID S L O A N , D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t er n D i s t r i ctof T ennes s ee a tJ acks on

/ B ef ore: G U Y and G R I F F I N , C i rcui t Judges; B A R ZI L A Y , Judge. * R A L P H B . G U Y , JR . , C i rcui t Judge. A j ur y found defendantJ oe Sl oan gui l t yof b e i n g a f e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m . F o l l o w i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th e e v i d e n c e t o t h e j u r y, S l o a n r e q u e s t e d a j u r y i n s t ru c t i o n o n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n o rn e c e s s i t y,
w hi ch w as deni ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t
. T he d ist r i ctcour tal s o deni ed Sl oan’ s m ot i on for

m i s t r i al , bas ed on t he di s t r i ctcour tdi r ect i ng t he j ur yt o d isr eg ar d anyevi dence of ju stif ica tio n o r n e c e ss ity . S lo a n a p p e a ls b o th ru lin g s. F in d in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly d e n ied S lo a n ’s d e sire d ju stif ica tio n d e f

e n se a n d th a t th e m o tio n f o r a m istria l w a s p ro p e rly d e n i e d , we a f

f i r m.No. 07-6466 2 I
. J oe Sl oan, es t r anged f

r om hi s w i fe, had moved out of t he home t heys har ed and be gan
s t ay i ng w i t h a cous i n named Teddy L ar r y M yr i ck att he begi nni ng of J une 2003. M yr i ck w as t hen l i vi ng i n a mobi l e hom e on pr oper t y ow ned by hi s s t epfa t her , J ohn K ai l
. N eart he end

o f th e m o n th , S lo a n w a s a rre ste d b ya u th o rities f o r b e in g a p re v io u slyc o n v icte d f e lo n in p o sses sion o f a firearm , p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 (g). Pr i ort o t r i al , Sl oan i ndi cat ed t hathe i nt ended t o pr es entt he af fi r m at i ve def

ens e of j us t i fi cat i on ornece s s i t y , bas ed on per cei ved t hr eat s he and hi s cous i n ex p erien ce d atand

ar ound hi s cous i n’ s hom e, des cr i bed i n m or e det ai l bel ow . C ouns el fort he governm entfi l ed

m oti on s i n l i m i ne , r eques t i ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tconduct a pr et r i al hear i ng t o det er m i ne th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e f

o r th e d e f

e n se , a n d to d e ter m in e th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f c e rta in ps y chol ogi cal t es t i m onyt hatSl oan i ndi cat ed he w ant ed t o pr es entatt r i al
. B efor e begi nni ng t r i al , t he di s t r i ctcourtgr ant ed t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o excl ude ps y chol ogi cal and p sy ch iat ri c e v iden ce , w h ich is n o t bef o re u s o n ap p ea l. C o n ce rnin g the e v iden ce o f S loan ’s “r eas onabl e good- fai t h fea r , ” t he di s t r i ctcour trul ed t hat [ S lo a n c a n o f

f e r] e v id e n c e o f

th re a ts th a t m a d e it n e c e ss a ryf o r h im to g e t a fi rea rm . H e ca n at t empt t o pr ove t he def ens e of dur es s orj us t i fi cat i on or nece s s i t y , w hat every ou w antt o cal l i ti n t hi s cas e. H e ca n offe revi dence
. N ow , att he end of

al l t he ev idence , t hen I ’ l l have t o deci de i f he ha s m ade a pr i m a f

aci e s how i ng s uffi ci entt o j us t i fyan i ns t ruct i on on defe ns e or j ust i fi cat i on or duress. So t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o t hatext enti s deni ed. T he defe ndantcan of

ferw hat everevi dence he has exce ptps y chi at r i c or ps y chol ogi cal evi dence
.No. 07-6466 3

Sl oan’ s fa the r

te s t i f i e d tha tbo th h e an d Ka i l t oo k “ s ampl e s ” of th e sp r ayedli qu i d f

r om th e pr op e rty. 1 Kai l s pe ci fi ed

th at he sq

ue ez ed li qu id fr om dr en ch ed in su lati on , lo cate d un de r th e m ob il e ho m e, into ajar
. T he evi dence att r i al i ncl uded t es t i m onyof Sl oan, M y ri ck , Sl oan’ s es t r anged w i fe, S lo a n ’s f a th e r, an d Jo h n K a il. S lo a n d e sc rib e d b iza rre e v e n ts o c c u rrin g o n th e K a il p ro p e rty dur i ng t he mont h of J une 2003 r el at ed t o t he al l eged, unaut hor i zed, w i des pr ead s pr ay i ng of

c h e m ica ls o n th e p ro p e rty
. S lo a n d e sc rib e d d y in g c h ick e n s w ith b lo o d ru n n in g o u t o f th e ir

m o u th s; a d d iti o n a l d e a d a n im a ls; a n im a ls a n d a re a s w e t w ith a liq u id th a t ca u se d h is s k in to
s w el l and burn fo r m o nt hs ; and “c hunks of bar k bi g as a bas ebal l ” fa l l i ng off tr ees . Sl oan al s o t es t i fi ed t hathe and M y r i ck s aw t he l i ght s fr om fl as hl i ght s i n t he w oods atni ght ; t hat one morni ng he s aw a man w i th an assa u l tr i fl e s t andi ng on t he pr oper t y , l ooki ng att he

m obi l e home i n w hi ch he a nd M yr i ck w er e l i vi ng; and t hat eac h t i m e he l eftt he pr oper t yhe

w as fol l ow ed. Sl oan’ s father , T om m ySl oan, i dent i fi ed m i s cel l aneous pi ctur es , i ncl udi ng a dead dog; a dark pond; s om e ca ni s t er s he as s er t ed w er e bombs, w hi ch he s t at ed w er e found “in close p rox im ity ” t o the m o b il e ho m e; an d tr ee b ark
. K ail test ifi ed that the tw o ca n ist ers
w e re f o u n d o n a d

jac e n t p ro p e rty , f

if ty f e e t a n d tw o o r th re e h u n d re d y a rd s f ro m h is p ro p e rty l i ne, and t hat he and Sl oan deci ded t o r emove them and br i ng t hem t o M yr i ck’ s m obi l e home. K ai l al s o t es t i fi ed about damage t o chi cken runs , and t hatt her e w as unaut hor i zed s pr ay i ng bei ng done on t he prope r t y , l eavi ng fol i age al ong t he dri vew ay and som e chi ckens “w r i ngi ng
w et ” w i t h an unknow n s ubs t ance . Sl oan’ s w i fe t es t i fi ed t hats he dr ove t o M emphi s w i t h her h u sb a n d to d e liv e r th e liq u id c o n ten ts o f a jar to th e f

ire d e p a rtm e n t. 1 A ft ert he pr oofs w er e compl et e, t he di s t r i ctcour tm ade i ts d eter m i nat i on t o deny S loan ’s req u est fo r a juryinstruction o n justi fica ti o n . T h e dist ri ct co u rt instructed the ju ryNo. 07-6466 4

Sloan refers to S ixth C ircuit Jury Instruction s §§ 6. 05 a nd6. 07, add ressingcoe rcion/duress an d 2 just i f i c at i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y . W e u s e th e t e rm “ ju s t i f i c at i o n ” f o r b o th th e r e qu e s t e d i n s tru c t i o n andS lo an ’s desired defense
. t o di s r egar d “anyevi dence of nec es s i t yor j us t i fi cat i on al l eged by t he defe ndant i n deci di ng
w h e th e r t h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s p ro v e n th e d e f e n d a n t g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” A ft ert he j ur yw as char ged, Sl oan made a mot i on form i str ial b ased on the above i ns t ruct i on, w hi ch w as deni ed by t he di s t r i ct cour t
. T he j ur yr etur ned a gui l t yver di ct , aft er
w hi ch Sl oan w as s ent ence d t o 100 m ont hs of i ncar cer at i on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II
. S lo a n ’s c laim s o n a p p e a l co n tes t th e d istric t c o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is req u e st fo r a S ix th C i r cui tpat t er n j ur yi ns t ruct i on on j us t i fi cat i on and i t s r el at ed rul i ng deny i ng hi s m ot i on for 2

a m istri al. W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n s co n ce rnin g w h ethe r t o g ive a p arti cu lar j u ry in s tr u c tio n f

o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U ni t ed Stat es v. A nders on , 6 0 5 F
. 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 1 (6th C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ). T h e re is n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n if

th e in stru c tio n s “ a s a w h o le . . . ad e q u a tely i nfor m ed the jury of t he r el evantcons i der at i ons and pr ovi ded a ba s i s i n l aw forai di ng t he j ur y i n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr eder i ck , 4 0 6 F
. 3 d 7 5 4 , 7 6 1 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). Si m i l ar l y , w e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of Sl oan’ s m ot i on for a mi s t r i al forabus e of d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

ar t i nez , 4 3 0 F
. 3 d 3 1 7 , 3 3 6 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). W hi l e t h e r e v i e w o f s e l e c t e d j u r y i n s t ru c t i o n s i s f o r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , t h e di s t r i ct
cour t ’ s det erm ination of w het herSl oan es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e cas e of the af

fi r m at i ve d e f e n s e o f j u s t i f

i c a t i o n i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w we r e v i e w de novo
. U ni t ed Stat es v. R i dner , 512 F. 3d 846, 849 ( 6t h C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 4 1 6 F
. 3 d 4 6 4 , 4 6 8 (6th C ir
.No. 07-6466 5

2005) )
. T he j us t i fi cat i on defe ns e “a r i s es onl y i n ‘ r ar e s i tuat i ons ’ and ‘ s houl d be cons t r ued

ver ynar r ow l y . ’ ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ke mp , 546 F. 3d 759, 765 ( 6t h C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Si ngl et on , 9 0 2 F
. 2 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 2 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 )). A. P r im a Facie C as e/ Jury I nst ruct i on T he par t i es agr ee on the fa ct or s t o b e co ns i der ed bya di s t r i ctcour ti n det er m i ni ng
w het hera def

endanti s ent i t l ed t o a j ur y i ns t ruct i on on t he af fi r m at i ve def

ens e of j us t i fi cat i on. T he d efen dan test abli shes hi s pr i m a f aci e cas e of j us t i fi cat i on bypr es ent i ng evi dence : ( 1) t hatdefe ndantw as underan unl aw ful and pr es ent , i m m i nent , and i m pendi ng t hr eat of s uch a natur e as t o i nduce a w el l

- gr ounded appr ehens i on o f d e a t h o rs e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y; ( 2) t hatthe def

endanthad notr eckl es s ly ornegl i gent l ypl ace d hi m s el f i n a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch i tw as pr obabl e t hathe w oul d be fo rce d to choos e t he c rim in a l co n d u c t; ( 3 ) t h a tt h e d e f

e n d a n th a d n o r e a s o n a b l e , l e g a l a l t e r n a t i v e t o v i o l a t i n g t h e l a w, a cha nce bot h t o r efus e t o do t he cr i m i nal actand al s o t o avoi d t he t hr eat ened h a r m; ( 4) t hata di r ect caus al r el at i ons hi p m ay be re as onabl y ant i ci pat ed betw een the c r i mi n a l a c t i o n t a k e n a n d t h e a v o i d a n c e o f t h e t h r e a t e n e d h a r m; ( 5) t hatdefe ndantdi d n o t m aint ai n t he i l l egal conductanyl ongert han a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y. U nit ed S t ates v. R i

ffe , 2 8 F
. 3d 56 5, 56 9 (6t h C i r. 19 94 ) ( abroga t ed o n o t her groun ds) ( em p h asi s om i t t ed) ( quot i ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ne wc o mb , 6 F
. 3 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 4 -35 (6th C ir
. 1993) ) ( ci t i ng Si ngl et on , 902 F. 2d at472- 73)
. I ns t ruct i ons on t he defe ns e ar e pr oper i f t he d e f e n d a n tp r o d u c e s e v i d e n c e u p o n w h i c h a r e a s o n a b l e j u r y c o u l d c o n c l u d e b y aNo. 07-6466 6

As the g ov ernm ent as serts, issues raised but n ot de v eloped by the appel l ant aredee m ed w aiv ed. 3 El-Moussa v. H

older , 5 69 F
. 3d

2 50 , 2 57 ( 6th C ir
. 2 00 9) ; United States v. Eld

er , 90 F
. 3d 11 10 , 11 18 (6 thC ir
. 1996 ). Whether or n ot S loan has waiv ed certain of these issues on appea l, w e find no error by

the district co urt. Wh il e S lo an

a ll eg ed h e co ul dn ’ta ff

or d to liv e so m ewhe re els e, and pro du ce d te st imony

f ro m h is 4 w if e th at h e w as n ot

w el co m e at

h ome, h e admitte d he c ou ld h av e st ay ed

w ith hi s fath er

and c erta in ly d id not p roduc e any

ev idence that the re w as nowhere else he c ould hav e stay ed. p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e ” th a t e a c h o f th e f iv e re q u ir e m e n ts is m e t. R i dner , 512 F. 3d at850. W hi l e Sl oan cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l ydet er m i ned t hat h e d i d not

s at i s fyt he fi ve Si ngl et on fac t or s , w e fi nd no er r or . A s t o t he fi r s tfac t or , t he t es t i m onyabout t he bi zarr e occ ur r ence s ar ound M yr i ck’ s m obi l e home cannotbe s ai d t o demonst r at e an i m m i nentori m pendi ng t hr eatof dea t h ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ur y . A l t h o u g h S loan t es t i fi ed abouts eei ng a man car r y i ng an as s aul tw eapon, he s t at ed t he man di s appea r ed i nt o t he

w oods
. Fur t her m or e, al l Sl oan i ncl udes i n hi s br i ef w i t h r es pect to t hi s fac t ori s r ei t er at ed

o r su m m a riz e d tes tim o n yf ro m trial. 3 T h e se c o n d e lem e n t re q u ire s th a t S lo a n d id n o t r e c k les slyo r n e g lig e n tlyp lac e h im se lf in th e situ a tio n th a t led to h is crim in a l c o n d u c t. S lo a n ’s c ited e v id e n c e d o e s n o t su p p o rt h is p o s i t i o n ; r a t h e rth a n c h o o s i n g t o a r m h i m s e l f , S l o a n c o u l d h a v e c h o s e n t o l e a v e . S i m i l a r l y, 4 Sl oan di d not s at i s fy t he t hi r d el ement w hi ch r equi r es a s how i ng t hat he had no r eas onabl e, l egal al t er nat i ve t o h is c ri m ina l act i on. Sl oan coul d have a voi ded t he t hr eatbyr emovi ng h im self f rom the a ll eg ed d an g er. C oncerni ng t he four t h fac t or , Sl oan w as r equi r ed t o pr oduce s om e evi dence t hat

a rm in g h im se lf

w o u ld a v o id th e th re a ten e d h a rm . S lo a n a ss e rts in h is b r ie f , a p p a re n tlytoNo. 07-6466 7

s ug ge s tt he hi gh l e ve l of hi s fe a r , t ha t he t e s t i fi e d a bo ut c a l l s he made t o “ H a z M a t , FBI , U
. S. A tto rn e y’s O f

f ice , as w e ll as ‘a n yb o d yh e c o u ld f in d in th e p h o n e b o o k .’” H e a lso a ss e rts th a t h e w a s u n a b le to lea v e th e p ro p e rtyw ith o u t b e in g f o llo w e d , an d th a t ch e m ica ls cont i nued t o be s pr ay ed. H e m akes no ar gum ent , how ever , abouthow carr y i ng a handgun

w oul d h a v e s t o p p e d t h e s e t h i n g s f r o m h a p p e n i n g . I n f

a c t , a s wi t h t h e f

i r s t f a c t or , Sl oan p re se n ts n o a rg u m e n t at a ll o n th is e lem e n t. W i t h r es pect to the fi ft h fac t or , t hatdefe ndantdi d notm ai nt ai n t he i l l egal conduct l ongert han nec es s ar y , Sl oan as s er t s t hat t he “l i fe thr eat eni ng” eve nt s occurr ed fr om J une 9 unt i l J une 29, 2003, and t hat “fi r earm s w er e not br ought t o t he pr oper t y by M yr i ck unt i l J une 19t h. ” Sl oan obj ect s t o the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s m i s s t at ement t hatt he per i od w hen Sl oan w as
arm ed las t ed “ th ree w eeks, ” st at i ng t hat the p eri od w as actuall yno m ore t han t en d ay s. R egar dl es s of any fac tual er r or m ade by t he di s t r i ctcour ti n i t s s t at ement , w e fi nd no er r or in it s d eterm ination o n this fac tor:

A nd fi ft h, t he defe ndant has not es t abl i s hed t hat he di d not m ai nt ai n t he i l l e g a l c o n d u c t a n y l o n g e r t h a n a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y . He k e p tt h e s e f i r e a r ms f o r th re e w e e k s, a n d th e d e f e n se o f n e c e ss ity o r j u stif ica tio n is g e n e ra lly ap p li ed i n a s i tuat i on t hatcomes up qui ckl y , t hatdoes n’ tl as tver yl ong. For exampl e, i f t he man w i t h t he as s aul tr i fl e had pointed the as s aul tr i fl e att he defe ndantand the def

endanthad pi cked up the s hot gun and fi r ed back orfi r ed fi r s t , per haps t hatw oul d be a s i tuat i on under w hi ch t he def ens e of ne ces s i t yor j us t i fi cat i on m us tbe j us t i fi ed. B ut just to see a m an i n a bl ack s ui tw i t h an assaul tri fl e i n the w oo ds i s not a j ust i fi cat i on t o k eep the gu n fo r three w eeks. A n d th e d e f

e n d a n t ad m its th a t h e d id th a t. A s di s cus s ed i n R i dner , i n rel at i on t o felon-i n-possessi on cases, ‘[t ]he defen se of necessi t y w i l l rar el y l i e i n a fel on -i n-possessi on case un l ess t he ex- fel on, n o t b ei ng engage d i n cr i m i nal act i vi t y , does not hi ng m or e t hanNo. 07-6466 8

gr ab a gun w i t h w hi ch he or anot heri s bei ng t hr eat ened ( t he ot herm i ghtbe t he p o s s e s s o r o f

th e g u n , th re a te n in g s u ic id e ).’ R i dner , 512 F. 3d at849 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. P er ez , 8 6 F
. 3 d 7 3 5 , 7 3 7 (7th C ir
. 1 9 9 6 )). H er e, w her e t her e w as no “i m m i nent ” or “ i m pendi ng” t hr eat , Sl oan’ s t en- daym ai nt enanc e of fi r earm s atM yr i ck’ s r es i dence

— w her e Sl oan h ad no obl i gat i on t o be— cannotbe d e s c ri b e d a s “ a b s o lu te ly n e c e s s a ry.” B eca us e t he di s t r i ctcour t di d not er r i n fi ndi ng t hatSl oan fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a p r i ma f aci e cas e of j us t i fi cat i on, t her e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on i n i t s det er m i nat i on t hatSl oan w as notent i t l ed t o t he r eques t ed j ur yi ns t ruct i on. B . M ot i on f

or M i s t ri al S loan arg u es in this clai m that the distr ict co u rt erred b yinstructing the ju ryto ign o re S loan ’s ev iden ce o f ju sti fica ti o n . A fter h ea ri n g the pa rt ies’ arg u m en ts co n ce rnin g S loan ’s des i r ed def

ens e of j us t i fi cat i on, t he di s t r i ctcour trul ed: T he cour tfi nds t her e i s not a s uffi ci entbas i s t o j us t i fyan i ns t ruct i on on t he defen se of j us t i fi cat i on, compul s i on, nece s s i t yordur es s , and t he defe ndant ’ s r eques tfort hati ns t ruct i on i s t her efor e deni ed. Si nce that ’ s notgoi ng t o be s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur y , t her e’ l l be no argum ent on t he d efen se of j ust i fi cat i on , necessi t y , com pu l si on or duress. T he d i st ri ctcou rtt hen st at ed t he foll ow i ng t o t he j ury i n t he cou rs e of givi ng i t s i nst ruct i on s:

D efe ndanthas pr es ent ed t es t i m onyi n w hi ch he c ont en d s t hathe p o sses sed the f

ir ea rm s b ec au se o f n ec essity o r ju sti fica ti o n ; h o w ev er, th e c o u rt has rul ed t hatt hi s evi dence i s notadmi s s i bl e and s houl d be di s r egar ded. T her efor e, y ou w il l n otcons i deranyevi dence of nec es s i t yorj us t i fi cat i on al l eged byt he def

endanti n deci di ng w het hert he governm enthas pr oven t he d e f e n d a n t g u iltyb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.No. 07-6466 9

A tt he conc l us i on of t he i ns t ruct i ons , defe ns e couns el m ade a m ot i on form i s t r i al , as s er t i ng t hat t he abov e i nst ruct i on given by t he di st ri ct cou rt w as essent i al l y an i m prope r “ re verse i ns t ruct i on” on j us t i fi cat i on. T he di s t r i ct cour t deni ed t hat m ot i on, pr ovi di ng t he fol l ow i ng expl anat i on: T h a t w a s m e re lya n e f

f o rt o n th e c o u rt’s p a rt, M r. C a m p , to u n rin g th e b e ll w h ich M r . Pow el l w ar ned m e about w hen t hi s t r i al s t ar t ed. I as s ur ed M r. Pow el l t hatI unr i ng t he bel l al l t he t i m e. In re tr o sp ec t, itw o u ld h av e b ee n fa r be tt er if I h ad g ran ted M r. P o w ell ’s m ot i on t o pr ohi bi t t he evi dence t hat w as offe r ed; but , as a pr act i cal m at t er , t hat wo u l d r e q u i r e t wo t r i a l s , o n e f o r y o u t o p r e s e n t y o u r e v i d e n c e a n d t h e n f o rme to ru le, a n d th e n w e ’d h a v e a n o th e r tria l. I tw as m ydeci s i on at t hat t i m e t o l et t he evi dence i n condi t i onal l yt o s ee if a d e f e n se o f ju stif ica tio n o r c o m p u lsio n o r n e c e ss ityc o u ld b e m a d e . If it coul d not , t hen I w oul d i ns t ructt he j ur ynott o cons i der i t
. T hat ’ s al l I ’ ve done. I w a s m e re ly a ttem p tin g to u n rin g th e b e ll w h ich M r. P o w e ll req u e ste d th a t I notdo i n t he fi r s tpl ace . B utt he r eques tfora mi s t r i al – ort he mot i on fora mi s t r i al i s deni ed. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng on a mot i on form i s t r i al foran abus e of di s cr et i on. U nit ed S t ates v. Fau lkenb erry , 6 1 4 F .3 d 5 7 3 , 5 9 0 (6 th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). “ T h e p rim a ryc o n c e rn in

rul i ng upon a mot i on fora m i s t r i al i s a det er m i nat i on of t he fa i r nes s t o t he ac cus ed. ” U ni t ed St at es v. B l akene

y , 942 F. 2d 1001, 1030 ( 6t h C i r . 1991) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. A t is ha , 804 F
. 2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 6 -2 7 (6 th C ir
. 1 9 8 6 )). T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s i n stru cti o n to the juryto ign o re evi dence of j us t i fi cat i on, as i texpl ai ned, w as nece s s ar yi n conj unct i on w i t h i t s det er m i nat i on that S loan w as n o t entit led to that d ef en se. T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c is io n to g ive th at j u ry i ns t ruct i on w as cl ear l yw i t hi n i t s per m i s s i bl e di s cr et i on. Furthe rm o r e, as t he governm entNo. 07-6466 10

po i nts ou t , S l oan has i den t i fi ed n o prej ud i ce res ult i ng from t he instruct i on . W e fi nd no abu se of di s cr et i on. T he d i st ri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED
.